Healing is what happens when Pastoral Practitioners minister, enabling people to receive restoration to health of body and mind through God's great love and mercy. This restoration of health is part of what is meant by the "abundant life" which the Lord promised.

ON THE TRAIN FROM DC

Submitted by Natural Solutio... on Thu, 2008-10-23 13:11

October 14, 2008

As I begin to write this article, I am on the train from D.C. to the BWI airport, heading home, having filed yet another set of papers in the Supreme Court of the United States in defense of the Constitution. Once again, the Government is in the process of attempting to seize power from the People.

This time, regarding the A.I.G. and $700 Billion Wall Street bailout plans, I filed an emergency motion asking the U.S. Supreme Court to restrain the Government from giving or lending taxpayer funds or credit in exchange for private assets in aid of private corporations, unless and until the government defendants could show the Court where in the Constitution it provides that the People have agreed to share with the Government their power to purchase private assets such as “toxic” mortgage-related assets and non-toxic shares of bank stocks.

My argument is the People never gave that power to the Government and the Government has taken another step outside the boundaries We the People have drawn around its limited, enumerated powers.

My case against the A.I.G. bailout and my case against the $700 billion bailout were filed in federal District Court on September 18 and September 24 respectively. In each case I had filed a similar emergency motion asking the Court to restrain the Defendants from transferring the taxpayer funds until they produced evidence before the Court that they had the legal authority to do so.

In both cases, without waiting to hear from the government defendants, the District Court (Judge Sharpe) denied my emergency motion on the ground that I had “failed to cite the Court’s jurisdiction” to hear the constitutional challenge. This was obviously nonsensical and untrue. Not only is the Court fully aware of its unquestionable and inherent jurisdiction to determine the constitutional questions, but I had fully recited the legal basis for the Court’s jurisdiction in the first paragraph of each complaint under the heading, “Jurisdiction and Venue.”

On September 30 I appealed Judge Sharpe’s evasive and erroneous decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. As part of that appeal, I filed a similar emergency motion asking the Appellate Court to restrain the Defendants from transferring taxpayer funds for the bailouts until they showed the Court they had the authority to do so. On October 10 the Court of Appeals notified me that it had denied the motion on October 6. Still, the government defendants had not filed any papers with the courts in response to the two lawsuits, other than a mere “Notice of Appearance” simply identifying the DOJ attorney assigned to the case by the defendants.

Because the application I filed today with SCOTUS is for a stay, and because it was filed before 2:00 pm today, it should be decided this afternoon by the individual justice assigned to my geographic area. That would be Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

So, here I am, waiting for the Supreme Court of the United States to timely respond to a judicial Petition for Redress of Grievances challenging grave violations of the Constitution by the other two branches of the federal Government.

I’m not very hopeful that SCOTUS will grant the relief requested, not because my papers were not artfully drawn or that I am not legally entitled to the relief I have requested, but because I have learned two important lessons during 30 years and more than 150 reported decisions in cases I have brought against local, state and federal government officials for violating various provisions of the NY and US constitutions.

First, the judiciary is highly politicized and quite corrupt. Second, the Wall Street merchants of debt are omnipotent, controlling our government officials, including judges and the political parties who designate most of those candidates who appear on the ballot on election day. Although I have won many cases and set some constitutional precedents, each time a case and controversy got too close to the heart of the lines of money and power I would lose, no matter how right I was on the law and no matter how artfully drawn my papers.

Because of the significance of these lessons, their relevance to current events, and the importance for people to think about them as they attempt to make sense of what is happening to them and our Republic, I will briefly discuss a few of the judicial proceeding I have been involved in that went to the heart of the lines of money and power.

There was the 1994 case, “Schulz v. State of New York,” where I challenged the power of the state of New York to borrow $6 Billion without first obtaining the approval of the People in a general election because Art. VII, Section 11 of the state Constitution requires all State debt to receive prior approval by a majority of the voters in a general election. (This amendment was added after two financial collapses of the 19th century which were widely recognized to have been caused by government’s reckless spending and borrowing policies and programs).

In the 1994 case the state hired outside attorney Arthur Lyman (of U.S. Senate Iran-Contra Hearing fame) to represent them and to oppose me. Incredibly, Lyman argued that because the $6 Billion in bonds were to be issued, not directly by the State, but on behalf of the State by two of the State’s public authorities, the debt was not the debt of the state, and if it was not the debt of the state, the provisions of the NY Constitution restricting the incurrence of debt were irrelevant.

Although Lyman readily recognized that according to the NY Constitution no money could come out of the State treasury to pay back the bonds without an appropriation by the State Legislature, he argued the NY Constitution does not mandate that the Legislature must make the appropriations and, therefore, the bondholders would have no legal recourse against the State if the Legislature failed to make the appropriations. He argued that if payment to the bond holders was not legally enforceable, the bonds could not be classified as debt and, therefore, the NY Constitution was irrelevant.

By quoting Article VII, Section 16 of the NY Constitution, I argued that the People of the State long ago declared the State would never default on its obligation to repay money borrowed on behalf of the State. I argued that if the Legislature failed to make the appropriation, the State Comptroller was required by the Constitution to set aside the next money received by the state and to use it to pay the bondholders, even before that money could be used to pay the salaries of state workers. I argued any bondholder threatened with not receiving principal of or interest on his bonds would have legal recourse by going to court and getting a writ of mandamus to force the Comptroller to comply with Article VII, Section 16 of the NY Constitution which reads:

“The legislature shall annually provide by appropriation for the payment of the interest upon and installments of principal of all debts created on behalf of the State…as the same shall fall due…If at any time the legislature shall fail to make any such appropriation, the comptroller shall set apart from the first revenues thereafter received, applicable to the general fund of the state, a sum sufficient to pay such interest, installments of principal, or contributions to such sinking fund, as the case may be, and shall so apply the moneys thus set apart. The comptroller may be required to set aside and apply such revenues as aforesaid, at the suit of any holder of such bonds.” NY Const., Art VII, Section 16.

Sidestepping (without mentioning) this constitutional provision and my argument, New York's highest court ruled the state could borrow the $6 Billion without voter approval, because it would not be the debt of the State, because repayment would not be legally enforceable. The Court held that any right that is not enforceable is not a right. The decision opened the proverbial Northwest Passage to massive amounts of what is commonly referred to in NY as “back door” borrowing, the incurrence of state debt without voter approval.

I took the case to SCOTUS on the ground of Due Process of law. Without comment, SCOTUS decided not to hear the case.

Another case that went to the heart of the lines of money and power and reflects the politicization of the judiciary and the power of the debt merchants was We The People v United States, another case that SCOTUS refused to hear even though it was a first impression case calling for a declaration of the meaning of the last ten words of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

The case has its roots in events of 1913, when the Government initiated the Federal Reserve System and its principle lender security program, i.e., the direct, un-apportioned tax on labor. The cartel of private banks, to be known as the Federal Reserve System, was not going to get into the business of lending the U.S. Government money unless the Government provided the lenders with the ultimate of lender security – that is, a direct tax upon the labor of the People to pay at least the interest on the debt.

Despite the Supreme Court's early rulings beginning in 1916 that such a tax was not constitutional, the Government continues to enforce such a "tax" upon the labor of Americans.

Beginning in 2000 this organization began to Petition the Executive and Legislative branches of the federal government for Redress regarding the Federal Reserve System and its violation of the money clauses of the Constitution, as well as the direct, un-apportioned tax on labor and its violation of the tax clauses of the Constitution. In 2004, the Judiciary was asked, for the first time in history, to declare the meaning of the accountability clause of the Constitution – i.e., the last ten words of the First Amendment.

Specifically, the Court was asked two questions: 1) is the Government obligated by the First Amendment of the Constitution to respond to the Petitions for Redress (Remedy) of alleged violations of the Constitution?; and 2) if Government does not respond, do the People have the inherent Right to withdraw their allegiance and support from the Government?

The lower federal courts, in a wholly frivolous “stare decisis” ruling, held the Government does not have to listen or respond to the People. One judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals (Judith Rogers) wrote, while holding against the People, that the case was truly unique (properly implying the judicial doctrine of stare decisis could not apply) and that it would be "interesting" to see how SCOTUS handled the case.

In January 2008, without comment, SCOTUS refused to hear the case, a case that, based on the historical context and purpose of the accountability clause, could have resulted in a tremendous shift of power from the Government to the People, where it was meant to be in the first place.

United States v We The People is yet another example of the power of the merchants of debt and the corruption of the Judiciary.

This case demonstrates that the judiciary has taken on the role of tax collector. It has decided it must help the Executive branch collect the direct, un-apportioned tax on labor, even if that means it must ignore its own Supreme Court precedents, abandon the Constitution, ignore the Law and cooperate with the Department of Justice and the IRS in a constructive conspiracy to deny Due Process and other fundamental Rights (such as Free Speech and Freedom of the Press) to any who are dragged into court for daring to question the legitimacy of any aspect of the Internal Revenue laws.

We the People was charged with promoting an “abusive tax shelter” following its free distribution of written material to workers for submission to their companies with a request that the companies submit the materials to their corporate tax attorneys and accountants to determine the accuracy of the information. The information questioned the constitutional authority of the Government to force companies to withhold pay from workers’ paychecks.

In this case, the federal courts improperly granted DOJ’s motion for a summary judgment against We The People -- without any public hearing -- even though significant material facts were in dispute, and despite the fact that federal rules of civil procedure clearly prohibit summary judgment under such circumstances. Under our system of Constitutional governance, the Government is entitled to its arguments, but it is not entitled to its version of the facts and it is certainly not entitled to the luxury of a Star Chamber. The very purpose of an independent, unbiased judiciary is to insure the integrity of the Law for all who invoke its protection. For instance, there are no exceptions to the Bill of Rights for those who question the Government’s authority under either the money or tax clauses of the Constitution.

Yesterday, without comment, SCOTUS denied We The People’s Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, meaning it decided it would not hear the case.

Last year at about this time, SCOTUS decided not to hear another case of mine that went to the heart of the lines of money and power – Schulz v Washington County. That case, probably more than any other proves just how far the Courts are willing to go to protect the merchants of debt.

In this case, Washington County (the NY county where I live) admitted that it violated the NY Constitution when two of its members quietly submitted a bill to the State Legislature to authorize the County to incur debt to pay for a privately owned garbage burning incinerator, and to add the debt, operating cost and profit of the project to the annual property taxes, and then lied to the Governor to get him to sign the bill into law, telling the Governor that the bill had the unanimous support of the Washington County Board of Supervisors, when in fact the matter had never been on any agenda of the Board of Supervisors and was never publicly discussed.

Article IX, Section 2 of the NY Constitution prohibits the State Legislature from adopting any law that will affect the property, affairs or government of one County, unless 2/3 of the members of that County’s governing body first votes its approval, and attaches a copy of the proposed state legislation to its Resolution.

Twice I challenged the illegal law in our State courts, seeking to have the property tax reduced by the amount of the cost of the incinerator project, including the cost of servicing the debt.

This would mean, of course, that for the first time in NY’s history, bondholders might not get paid (there being a Supreme Court decision saying that if a unit of government issues bonds in spite of constitutional restrictions, the bondholder has no recourse against the issuer of the bonds).

Twice those state Courts dismissed the case without addressing the constitutional issue.

I then petitioned each of the 19 members of the County Board of Supervisors, exercising my Right of Redress, seeking a remedy of the violation of the State Constitution. There was no response from any of the members.

I then filed a case in the federal district court under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution. (The First Amendment guarantees the Right of Redress. The Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to the States). At a hearing the federal Judge asked the County’s attorney if I had first taken the case to the State Courts. The attorney said, “Yes.” The judge then asked the attorney if the State Courts addressed my constitutional claim in either of the two state cases. The attorney said, “No.” The judge asked, “Why not?” The attorney simply said the state courts missed (overlooked) the constitutional challenge in both cases.

Notwithstanding the county attorney’s admission, the federal judge dismissed the case saying under federal law, the federal courts are prohibited from hearing cases involving local or State taxes if there is a state remedy available. Obviously, I had proven and the record showed a remedy was not available to me in the State.

The U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision and SCOTUS decided, without comment, not to hear the case.

Unfortunately, there are numerous other cases that I have been directly involved in or have personally witnessed that I can use to illustrate just how politicized and corrupt the judiciary has become, especially in cases that go to the heart of the lines of money, taxes and power.

The time has come to more openly question and explain why I, or anyone else, should continue to engage our corrupt judiciary in a seemingly losing effort to hold the Government accountable to the restrictions, prohibitions and limited powers set forth in our Constitution.

So Why Bother?

It’s the right thing to do on a number of levels.

First, that’s what the Judiciary is there for. The future is unwritten for those that may follow in our footsteps in the defense of the Constitution. I want to make it very difficult for anyone in the future, who questions how it came to be that that the Government was able to routinely violate the Constitution, to claim that those violations went unchallenged, or that a challenger failed to exhaust all his judicial remedies by taking the matter “all the way” after a lower court ruled against him.

The violations must be peaceably, and thoroughly challenged using the single practicable means the Government has left open to us: Petitions for Redress via the Judiciary.

Second, it is so terribly important for the People to establish a complete historical record of the Government’s persistent failures to respond to the People’s intelligent, professional, rational and repeated petitions for Redress of violations of the Constitution. Court records establish such a permanent, historical trail, providing our posterity with a highly ordered and cohesively argued justification for the acts they may ultimately decide to take, in their Sovereign judgment, in further defense of their Rights, their Liberty, and the Constitution.

What better justification could there be for the People to withdraw their allegiance and support from the Government until their Grievances are Redressed? It would not be the first time in history that the People justified their defiance by standing upon on a solid record of repeated Petitions for Redress and Government’s retorts and repeated injuries.

Home Now …

I’ve returned home from DC. It’s Wednesday 5:30 pm. I have not heard from Justice Ginsburg regarding my emergency motion.

The DJIA has dropped another 733 points.

What is the Appropriate Next Step?

A free People should always ask, after each impasse, “What is the appropriate next step, given the Government’s violation of the Constitution, and its refusal to respond to legitimate Petitions for Redress?”

Please know this: the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches are made up of ordinary men and women who suffer the common human frailties of love of money and power, and who abhor accountability. Beyond these government employees lie hoards with special interests that seek to exploit those frailties in order to feed at the federal tax trough.

The Constitution is all that stands between the People and total tyranny and despotism. However, the Constitution can’t defend itself. That responsibility rests with the People.

However, most People prefer the calm sea of despotism to constitutional activism. It’s one thing to declare and talk about a violation of the Constitution, it’s quite another to actually confront it.

Reasonable men and women of good conscience know the history of man's long fight for Liberty as well as Freedom’s fragility and its vulnerability to the natural forces of Government. They also know well the consequences of inaction. However, the inconveniences attending Liberty are great – giving pause to many.

Everyone acts according to the dictates of his own values and reason.

So it is that Government gains ground and Liberty loses ground.

I, for one, believe defense of the Constitution and resistance to tyrants is obedience to our Creator, and that if We the People are to remain free, we need to commit ourselves as "citizen centurions", utilizing every available weapon provided by the Constitution.

Jefferson said we should “Always take hold of things by the smooth handle.” The smoothest thing the People have to take hold of, to confront unconstitutional behavior, is the Constitution itself and its accountability clause.

If we have evidence of violations of the Constitution, we have the unalienable Right of Redress – to Petition the Government for Redress of these violations. If the Government refuses to respond we have the inherent Right to withdraw our allegiance and support.

Whatever the future course of history, we need the historical record to document that before the People took action in their defense of the sacred Constitution, the People gave the Government many, many chances over many, many years to remedy its myriad violations.

We the People do not draw near our servant Government as aggressors. Our war is not a war of conquest or overthrow. We fight solely in the defense of our Constitution, our Liberty, our Freedom, our unalienable Rights, and our homes, families, and posterity. The record is clear and unambiguous. We the People have repeatedly Petitioned, humbly and in good faith. Our Petitions have been met with scorn. We have entreated, and our entreaties have been disregarded. We have begged, and they have mocked, even now as our financial calamity falls upon us - a bastard born of excessive government force and constitutional abuse.

We must beg no longer; we must entreat no more. No more Petitions.

Organization for defiance ought now to be the mantra of those who understand the truth and have reached the limit of their submission to a Government that now routinely usurps power from the People.

Closing (Rhetorical) Questions

What if the Government had responded, in November 2002 (six years before our financial calamity) to our Petition for Redress of Grievances regarding the unconstitutional Federal Reserve System?

What if the Government had responded, in November 2002 (five months before the invasion of Iraq) to our Petition for Redress of Grievances regarding the unconstitutional Iraq Resolution?